Kodak's new film scanner...good move?

[jtk]

Cibachrome, that's something I really miss. I can live without Kodachrome.

There's a book of John F Kennedy photos, the negatives were lost in the 9/11 attacks on NY. There were contact sheets of the negatives and proved to be more than adequate for the book.

Which Kennedy book is that?

 

[jtk]

My main computer system is up to date with Windows 10 but I get around the problem with the lack of interface with my Coolscan 4 by attaching it to a Dell laptop which works well using Windows XP. I stripped out all the 'add on' programmes that I would not use then I 'upped' the RAM which solved the scan speed problem. The scans are all done in RAW which I don't think any scanner apart from Nikon is capable of.

I scan negatives mainly without a problem. (except you cannot use ICE with B&W except films like XP2) but also gradually working my way through a few many boxes of slides. What it does show up is slides that previously you may have thought they were sharp, the Scanner is so good you soon see the ones that are not as sharp as you think they are

ICE works fine with all sorts of B&W films. 2475 recording film and HP4, for example.

 

[BMbikerider]

I have never used 2475 recording film and as for HP4 where do you get usable stocks of that these days? We have had HP5 and HP5+ since HP4 was discontinued in 1989 that is over a quarter of a century ago. So what is you point this was about 8 or 9 years before the 1st Coolscan hit the shops.

Nikon specifically stated in the instructions that their scanners would not scan films without the same composition as colour negative film and chromogenic films. It wasn't until even the 3rd or 4th model would it scan Kodachrome using ICE. Even then it wasn't as effective as films that needed E6 processing. They would happily scan any film I know of, but without the ICE being activated.

The reason why it will not work with simple silver imaged negatives is due to the Infra red used to detect dust and scratches, will identify the silver grains of the emulsion and think they are dust etc. It would scan but the results were all 'mush' and totally useless. But with colour and chromogenic emulsion. the image is dye based and is not recognised as a 'foreign' object.

I also use a Epson flatbed scanner which has ICE facility and it will not work on that device either, but they have an option for B&W negatives which will detect and eliminate dust etc (but not as effectively as ICE) but better than nothing.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I have never used 2475 recording film and as for HP4 where do you get usable stocks of that these days? We have had HP5 and HP5+ since HP4 was discontinued in 1989 that is over a quarter of a century ago. So what is you point this was about 8 or 9 years before the 1st Coolscan hit the shops.

Nikon specifically stated in the instructions that their scanners would not scan films without the same composition as colour negative film and chromogenic films. It wasn't until even the 3rd or 4th model would it scan Kodachrome using ICE. Even then it wasn't as effective as films that needed E6 processing. They would happily scan any film I know of, but without the ICE being activated.

The reason why it will not work with simple silver imaged negatives is due to the Infra red used to detect dust and scratches, will identify the silver grains of the emulsion and think they are dust etc. It would scan but the results were all 'mush' and totally useless. But with colour and chromogenic emulsion. the image is dye based and is not recognised as a 'foreign' object.

I also use a Epson flatbed scanner which has ICE facility and it will not work on that device either, but they have an option for B&W negatives which will detect and eliminate dust etc (but not as effectively as ICE) but better than nothing.

The reason Kodachrome also doesn't work with Epson ICE is the film has three layers - for the three primary colors unlike other E6 chromes with a single dye layer. Kodak's layers fool the infrared reflections into thinking they're cracks, dust etc.

 

[BMbikerider]

Thank you Alan, I couldn't fathom out the reason why Kodachrome was different. Mind you since my 1st post I tried scanning a Kodachrome slide on the V600 flatbed, with and without the ICE turned on and there was little difference. Perhaps the version of ICE in the Nikon was a different animal altogether. Their designation of ICE was ICE CUBED.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Thank you Alan, I couldn't fathom out the reason why Kodachrome was different. Mind you since my 1st post I tried scanning a Kodachrome slide on the V600 flatbed, with and without the ICE turned on and there was little difference. Perhaps the version of ICE in the Nikon was a different animal altogether. Their designation of ICE was ICE CUBED.

So ICE on a V600 works with Kodachrome?

 

[BMbikerider]

So ICE on a V600 works with Kodachrome?

Seemingly yes but I have so few Kodachrome slides and what I do have are around 40-50 yrs old. I never did care for it, the colours always seemed bland and I could process E6 myself.

 

[BMbikerider]

Seemingly yes but I have so few Kodachrome slides and what I do have are around 40-50 yrs old. I never did care for it, the colours always seemed bland and I could process E6 myself.

Here is the proof. On the one with no ICE there are a few light marks in the sky, to the left of the building in the centre. With the one using ICE these marks are not there. There was a noticeably longer scan period of around 70 seconds more when I scanned using ICE and the sky tone is slightly different. These are from the time when I was in the Army in Germany April1979

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

That's great. Seems like scanning Kodachrome with ICE works fine.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Maybe it depends on which way the emulsion is set - on top or the bottom?

 

[MattKing]

It depends on the version of ICE, apparently.

 

[BMbikerider]

Shiny side up - always, although Epson say you should do it emulsion side up. It matters not if it is colour, B&W negs or transparencies. That is according to Epson, but it is a simple matter with the preview thumbnails to flip them over.

You got me thinking and I scanned a B&W negative with ICE and without. With the one that employed ICE, it was was dreadful! The edges of some objects were all broken up and 'mushy' more or less the same as you get with the Nikon Scanner. The other one was OK-ish but not as good as the Nikon.

AS Matt mentions, are there different editions of ICE? With the Nikon version that is around18 years old, likewise with Minilab scanner where they have ICE. The one in my V600 will be possibly only 3-4 years old although I have owned this scanner for less than a year.

 

[MattKing]

It is probably more accurate to say that there are different versions of ICE, and different hardware implemented by those versions.
One can, of course, actually see the effect of the various layers in Kodachrome - the relief on the emulsion side is visible to the naked eye.
Those layers are actually very thin - that thinness is one of the features of Kodachrome that led, in its time, to being one of the sharpest films available.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Shiny side up - always, although Epson say you should do it emulsion side up. It matters not if it is colour, B&W negs or transparencies. That is according to Epson, but it is a simple matter with the preview thumbnails to flip them over.

You got me thinking and I scanned a B&W negative with ICE and without. With the one that employed ICE, it was was dreadful! The edges of some objects were all broken up and 'mushy' more or less the same as you get with the Nikon Scanner. The other one was OK-ish but not as good as the Nikon.

AS Matt mentions, are there different editions of ICE? With the Nikon version that is around18 years old, likewise with Minilab scanner where they have ICE. The one in my V600 will be possibly only 3-4 years old although I have owned this scanner for less than a year.

Check the Epson site for the latest Epsonscan software for Windows. For Apple machines, they now call it Epsonscan 2.

 

[mtnbkr]

Just a general question about the type of devices in the OP...

Are these sufficient for evaluating negatives prior to sending them out for printing? I develop my own negatives, but don't have room for a proper darkroom. I've tried using my digital camera, which works, but there's too many steps just to get to a decision point. I don't want to turn it into a cottage industry, just quickly scan, reverse, then decide if what I have is worth sending out.

Chris

 

[jtk]

Shiny side up - always, although Epson say you should do it emulsion side up. It matters not if it is colour, B&W negs or transparencies. That is according to Epson, but it is a simple matter with the preview thumbnails to flip them over.

You got me thinking and I scanned a B&W negative with ICE and without. With the one that employed ICE, it was was dreadful! The edges of some objects were all broken up and 'mushy' more or less the same as you get with the Nikon Scanner. The other one was OK-ish but not as good as the Nikon.

AS Matt mentions, are there different editions of ICE? With the Nikon version that is around18 years old, likewise with Minilab scanner where they have ICE. The one in my V600 will be possibly only 3-4 years old although I have owned this scanner for less than a year.

Epson claimed to have used two licensed versions of ICE...one to scan prints and the other to scan both prints and films. I think that wasn't true.

 

[jtk]

Also,fwiw, Nikon's V was the first limited-auto advance Nikon that used ICE properly. The earlier IV model almost did and the earlier Nikon's didn't at all.

Nikon V (and maybe earlier models?) allowed localized focus on a frame, which was helpful when scanning curved film or film in slide mounts. Focus is different at edges and at center. It was possible to use V without local focus but it is/was distinctly better with focus point selected (which is the way the V was designed).

 

[jtk]

Back to my original OT: Kodak's device produces a digital file. That allows all sorts of printing...such as from one's existing color inkjet printer (not necessarily a photo version). As well, that thumb drive can be mailed to a lab...even Kodak's if that continues to exist. Or to anybody else's inkjet lab. Or that file can simply be sent somewhere online.
That gives "Kodak" the option to remain in a modern photo-printing business or to farm that out wherever most economical/convenient. China? Malaysia? Alabama?

The corporate brand name thereby opens relationship with a staggeringly large demographic... the folks who ignore old boxes full of slides/film (and may even want to find out if their old film cameras still work).

As well, the corporation obviously wants to print from all digital cameras including cell phones (which natively send files to labs).

"Kodak" thereby has no reason to print from America's Midwest any more than Flickr or B&H or Amazon do.

 

[warden]

Try darktable.

I already rent the full suite of Adobe products so I’ll stick with them - I’m just thinking of the benefits of Lightroom Vs Photoshop which I currently use, but requires my own folder based organizational scheme, which is proving difficult to use. I’ll keep investigating.

 

[MattKing]

As indicated earlier, this Amazon listing is for a product that has no connection with Eastman Kodak or Kodak Alaris, other than the fact that the Kodak name has been licensed. It appears to be the same or similar to the same iten, sold by others under a different name.
It has exactly the same relation to Kodak as this sweatshirt does:
https://www2.hm.com/en_us/productpage.1065654009.html

 

[jtk]

I already rent the full suite of Adobe products so I’ll stick with them - I’m just thinking of the benefits of Lightroom Vs Photoshop which I currently use, but requires my own folder based organizational scheme, which is proving difficult to use. I’ll keep investigating.

Perhaps I understand your thinking. My own organization is partially visual (on one hard drive) and chronological (another hard drive). If I want a Mojave Desert image I can find it quickly in a visually related group (e.g. Death Valley). Lightroom may be organizational overkill for my needs but it's probably crucial for someone who photographs social events or scientific phenomena..

 

[warden]

Perhaps I understand your thinking. My own organization is partially visual (on one hard drive) and chronological (another hard drive). If I want a Mojave Desert image I can find it quickly in a visually related group (e.g. Death Valley). Lightroom may be organizational overkill for my needs but it's probably crucial for someone who photographs social events or scientific phenomena..

And making matters more challenging is that my work is done on film, so there is the issue of finding old negatives as well as old images on the hard drive, so I really ought to coordinate what is on the computer with what is in the negative binders. (Sorry for taking your scanner thread in an OT direction!)

 

[jtk]

And making matters more challenging is that my work is done on film, so there is the issue of finding old negatives as well as old images on the hard drive, so I really ought to coordinate what is on the computer with what is in the negative binders. (Sorry for taking your scanner thread in an OT direction!)

How are your film negative files organized? Before I got maximum disorganized I just filed strips/slides crudely. Then all hell broke loose, I needed to inkjet print everything I cared about, then realized I needed to rededicate everything to digital files. Then I realized I didn't much care about my older work, save for new scans of family history from 1800s and a Russian collection (found in a flea market). Now almost everything is visually organized. Never did get a clear explanation for why that woman left me, but I'm glad she did.

 

[warden]

How are your film negative files organized? Before I got maximum disorganized I just filed strips/slides crudely. Then all hell broke loose, I needed to inkjet print everything I cared about, then realized I needed to rededicate everything to digital files. Then I realized I didn't much care about my older work, save for new scans of family history from 1800s and a Russian collection (found in a flea market). Now almost everything is visually organized. Never did get a clear explanation for why that woman left me, but I'm glad she did.

The negatives are in print file sleeves with dates on them and maybe a note about the iso or lens I used, and stored chronologically in three ring Printfile binders. But I need to remember when I shot something (at least the year) to begin the search for a particular image.

But the scans on my computer of those same negatives are a little better organized, in folders with titles like "2022_0909 Ikon Sonnar HP5 1600 rehearsal", so at least I have a clue what is in the folder. But it's not uncommon to have six or more folders that have that exact title except for the date, so it's still a bit of a hunt.

 

[waynecrider]

Just a general question about the type of devices in the OP...

Are these sufficient for evaluating negatives prior to sending them out for printing? I develop my own negatives, but don't have room for a proper darkroom. I've tried using my digital camera, which works, but there's too many steps just to get to a decision point. I don't want to turn it into a cottage industry, just quickly scan, reverse, then decide if what I have is worth sending out.

Chris

My Small Minolta projector works pretty good for ascertaining frames to print/scan.